search_incident_memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Semantic search' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is a useful behavioral clue. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention any permissions, or describe limitations (e.g., result sorting, availability of historical data). For a search tool, the implicit non-destructive nature is adequate but not fully explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no redundancy. The tool's core function is front-loaded and the usage hint follows directly. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is searched (past incidents and outcomes) and gives a practical use case. It does not detail the result shape or pagination behavior, but the `limit` parameter and the nature of semantic search make it sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning what fields results contain, but it is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (query and limit) at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. It simply restates the search intent. Per guidelines, high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search over AgentCore's episodic memory of past incidents and their outcomes.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like investigate_incident or export_postmortem by focusing on historical resolution lookup. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use to find how similar incidents were resolved before.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that no further guidance is needed for a simple search tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.